From: John B. on 5 Mar 2010 09:16 On Mar 4, 5:06 pm, Dinosaur_Sr wrote:> On Mar 4, 4:44 pm, "John B." wrote: > > > On Mar 4, 4:13 pm, Dinosaur_Sr wrote: > > > > On Mar 4, 2:38 pm, "John B." wrote: > > > > > On Mar 4, 1:37 pm, Dinosaur_Sr wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 3, 6:07 pm, "John B." wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 5:05 pm, Dinosaur_Sr wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 6:32 pm, "John B." wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 2:22 pm, Dinosaur_Sr wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 9:32 am, "John B." wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 1, 9:19 pm, BAR wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In article <26455639-3205-4bf7-a0f6-760e4098a190 > > > > > > > > > > > @z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 1, 8:47 pm, BAR wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > In article , > > > > > > > > > > > > > bkni...(a)conramp.net says... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 20:26:02 -0500, BAR wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >In article <4b8c6809$0$30950$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:09:19 -0700, Howard Brazee wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:57:20 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> Agreed, but it works both ways. If someone loses their job and needs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> to buy a private insurance policy, insurance cos. shouldn't be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >>> allowed to turn them down because of the state of their health. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> No problem. The question is, who is going to pay for it? The clear > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> consensus in the US is that ordinary working people feel they pay too > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> much to the govt, and they don't want to pay any more, in fact, they > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> want to pay less. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > Who pays for it now? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > (We do). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> The ideologues seem to be ignoring this obvious fact with all their > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Everyone should pay for the services they receive. If you don't pay you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >should go to jail for stealing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >If someone walked into your house and grabbed your wife's jewelry and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >your computer and other valuables so that they could eat would you call > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >the police? Would you just let them steal from you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bert, you really need to do some studying on analogies. This one was > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so far off it isn't even funny.....even for you.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stealing is stealing. When you got to a place of business and you have > > > > > > > > > > > > > have no intention of paying for the services you receive you are > > > > > > > > > > > > > stealing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's a difference between intent and ability. You refuse to accept > > > > > > > > > > > > that anyone might be unable to pay for medical care.. > > > > > > > > > > > > Main Entry: 1in tent > > > > > > > > > > > Pronunciation: \in-?tent\ > > > > > > > > > > > Function: noun > > > > > > > > > > > Etymology: Middle English entente, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin > > > > > > > > > > > intentus, from Latin, act of stretching out, from intendere > > > > > > > > > > > Date: 13th century > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 a : the act or fact of intending : purpose; especially : the design or > > > > > > > > > > > purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act > > > > > > > > > > intent> b : the state of mind with which an act is done : volition > > > > > > > > > > > 2 : a usually clearly formulated or planned intention : aim > > > > > > > > > > director's intent> > > > > > > > > > > > 3 a : meaning, significance b : connotation 3 > > > > > > > > > > > synonyms see intention > > > > > > > > > > > > Main Entry: abil i ty > > > > > > > > > > > Pronunciation: \?-?bi-l?-te-\ > > > > > > > > > > > Function: noun > > > > > > > > > > > Inflected Form(s): plural abil i ties > > > > > > > > > > > Etymology: Middle English abilite, from Anglo-French, from Latin > > > > > > > > > > > habilitat-, habilitas, from habilis apt, skillful ? more at able > > > > > > > > > > > Date: 14th century > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 a : the quality or state of being able > > > > > > > > > > water>; especially : physical, mental, or legal power to perform b : > > > > > > > > > > > competence in doing : skill > > > > > > > > > > > 2 : natural aptitude or acquired proficiency > > > > > > > > > > warrant higher education> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you don't have the ability to pay then your intent is to steal.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > So, if you're one of the millions of people who list their jobs and > > > > > > > > > > their health insurance in the recession and you, say, break your leg, > > > > > > > > > > going to the ER with no immediate ability to pay for treatment is > > > > > > > > > > stealing? > > > > > > > > > > You get a bill, like if you need to fix your car, or you need a new > > > > > > > > > roof on your house.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > Medical bills can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. If > > > > > > > > I'm not mistaken, car and roof repairs generally don't run that high. > > > > > > > > Really? Looking over a lifetime, what do people spend? > > > > > > > > Look at housing. Let's get real cheap, and say a person spends$500.00 > > > > > > > per month, and that's pretty cheap if they have any utilities.. Over > > > > > > > say 50 years, that comes to $300,000.00 for housing. Of course$500.00 > > > > > > > per month would be cheap for a car, assuming you do repair it from > > > > > > > time to time, put gas in it, park it, clean it, change the oil. > > > > > > > > You'll pay $300,000.00 for a car, but somehow can't handle paying that > > > > > > > for your own health care so you have to pay someone else to pay for > > > > > > > your health care for you. I must admit, I don't get it. > > > > > > > > You want to talk housing, people pay more like$2000.00 per month for > > > > > > > housing.  Over 50 years that's over a million, and very few people > > > > > > > spend that much on health care (compared especially to those who spend > > > > > > > that on housing). > > > > > > > > So why can't we buy our own health care? There are some real issues > > > > > > > here that could be solved, but we choose to go the way of paying the > > > > > > > government and insurance companies to pay for our health care for > > > > > > > us...and we are supposed to think this is cheaper? You absolutely have > > > > > > > to be an idiot to believe this.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > This is ridiculous. You get cancer, you get hurt in an accident, any > > > > > > number of other things, and you're up to your ears in medical bills in > > > > > > a matter of weeks or months. What is the point of comparing that to > > > > > > how much one might spend on housing or cars over the course of 40-50 > > > > > > years? > > > > > > So you pay them. It's OK to take a trip around the world and rack up > > > > > 20K worth of expenses, but not rack up similar for health care? Or buy > > > > > a house for $650K on one day and not pay for it for 30 years, but you > > > > > can't do the same sort of thing for health care? > > > > > > Why are we such idiots that we pay someone else to pay for our health > > > > > care, and thereby give up control of what we get for our money? Why > > > > > should I pay an insurance company of the govt to provide what they > > > > > think I need for health care? I can make such decisions for myself, > > > > > and I would very greatly prefer to make such decisions for myself.. > > > > > > I also don't like the idea of paying$500 a month for 50 years (300K) > > > > > that I might never spend on health care. How many people spend so > > > > > much? My Dad is 86, a WWII vet, and he hasn't spent anywhere near > > > > > that, but he has probably paid more than $300K over his lifetime for > > > > > health care. Why? Why not pay for health care as you need it? > > > > > > Why do we have this idiot notion that we need someone else to take our > > > > > money to pay for our health care?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > You're very good at spewing righteous indignation that has nothing to > > > > do with the topic at hand. My mother had Lou Gehrig's Disease. She had > > > > a$1 million health insurance policy and we went through it in about 6 > > > > years. She had a net worth of about $2 million in stocks and real > > > > estate. We spent it all on doctors, nurses and housing. What if, like > > > > most people, she had not been rich? What if she'd had a standard > > > > insurance policy with a deductible so high you have to go broke before > > > > it will pay for anything? What would your sage advice be about that? > > > > So you are bitter because your mother paid for her own health care? > > > What is so bad about that? Who else is supposed to pay for it? > > > > I had a policy with a$2,000 deductible at one time. Best insurance I > > > ever had. Why should I pay someone else to pay for a checkup. Cheaper > > > for me to just pay for it myself.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I'm not bitter about anything. I was trying to give you an example of > > what can happen to people who, unlike my mother, don't have $2 million > > to spend and can't afford insurance that actually covers anything. But > > apparently this is too complicated for you. > > So you are claiming that people who lack$2 million will not get > decent care if they come down with Lou Gehrig's disease? That's simply > not true and you know it. Since you're so well-informed, why don't you enlighten me about what kind of treatment an unwealthy and underinsured ALS patient would get? From: John B. on 5 Mar 2010 09:19 On Mar 4, 8:53 pm, Jack Hollis wrote:> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:47:45 -0800 (PST), "John B." > > wrote: > >On Mar 4, 11:29=A0am, Jack Hollis wrote: > >> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:32:28 -0800, "dene" > >> wrote: > > >> >It's hard for me to defend the worst president since Carter....but I wil= > >l > >> >never agree with you or anybody in saying he is a dumb man. > > >> Only a complete ideologue could ignore the objective data that Bush > >> was a man of superior to very superior intelligence. =A0 > > >I haven't seen that data. Can you tell me where to find it? > > Bush's SAT score (pre 1974) was 1206.  As you might expect, his 566 in > verbal was well below his 640 in math. > > In any case, this score converts to an IQ of around 127 to 132 which > is in the superior to very superior range. > > http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Pre1974SAT.aspx > > BTW, JFK scored a 119 on the Otis IQ test when he was tested for > admission to a private high school. That's it? That's the data? From: John B. on 5 Mar 2010 09:27 On Mar 4, 9:00 pm, Jack Hollis wrote:> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:53:15 -0800 (PST), Dinosaur_Sr > > wrote: > >On Mar 4, 11:29=A0am, Jack Hollis wrote: > >> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 23:32:28 -0800, "dene" > >> wrote: > > >> >It's hard for me to defend the worst president since Carter....but I wil= > >l > >> >never agree with you or anybody in saying he is a dumb man. > > >> Only a complete ideologue could ignore the objective data that Bush > >> was a man of superior to very superior intelligence. =A0 > > >Rosie O'Donnell and Keith Olberwoman disagree with you! > > Rosie is as dumb as they come, but Keith seems to be pretty sharp. But > the data is clear Bush is a very smart man.  And he's a man of > conviction and principle, which, combined with his superior > intelligence, made him a great president..  Again, only a complete > ideologue could ignore objective data. A great president? Let's look objectively at how things were at the end of the Clinton administration and how things were at the end of Bush. At the end of Clinton there was a budget surplus, we were at the end of the longest persion of economic growth in US history, we were at peace, crime had fallen nationwide, unemployment was low and the United States was sitting on top of the world. At the end of Bush, we were in two wars, there was a \$1.7 trillion deficit, a financial crisis and a severe recession, high unemployment, and America's standing in the world had fallen to an all-time low. All in all, the country was in worse shape than at anytime since WWII. But Bush was a great president, huh? From: John B. on 5 Mar 2010 09:29 On Mar 4, 9:16 pm, Jack Hollis wrote:> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:31:42 -0700, Howard Brazee > wrote: > > >On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:26:58 -0500, Jack Hollis > >wrote: > > >>>He definitely was NO  in charge.  Cheney was the POTUS. > > >>Complete nonsense.  By the middle of Bush's second term, Cheney was > >>totally ignored by Bush. > > >That seems to be the case.   But by then it was too late. > > >Although Bush came across much more articulate when discussing war > >than in discussing compassion all along, so maybe Cheney wasn't as > >responsible for policy as he looked. > > All in all, I would have preferred Cheney as president rather than > Bush, but Bush did an excellent job on the foreign policy front, but > was a huge disappointment on the domestic front.   > > If Cheney would have gotten his way, the mess in Iran would not have > been left to the current administration.  Unfortunately, it's pretty > clear that Obama doesn't have a clue how to deal with that situation > at all.  So far, Obama looks like a complete fool with one deadline > being replaced by another deadline when the Iranians ignore it. Bashing Obama doesn't really bear out your premise that Bush was a "great president." If doing a great job on the foreign policy front means alienating all your allies, then I completely agree with you. From: Howard Brazee on 5 Mar 2010 09:44 On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:00:21 -0500, Jack Hollis wrote: >Rosie is as dumb as they come, but Keith seems to be pretty sharp. But >the data is clear Bush is a very smart man. And he's a man of >conviction and principle, which, combined with his superior >intelligence, made him a great president.. Again, only a complete >ideologue could ignore objective data. Having all of those characteristics only makes one "great" if his ideology is the same as the person making the statement. Ideology appears to count more than smarts, conviction, and principle (nobody wants the other side to have conviction). Although history puts that label on someone who is there when a war is won, whether or not the leader did anything to win the war - or even if the leader caused the war in the first place. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last